Would Shane Bond Make the all time ODI World XI?

[Manu Vatuvei]

waqar has an rpo of 4.6 and bond 4.2 lol dickhead ...

?

Waqar's is 4.7 actually. That would put him behind about 75% of his contemporaries. How you gonna put a guy in your all-time 11 when he is below average in the most important statistical category?

 

[JJ]

waqar played 200 more matches and has roughly identical statistics which makes waqar younis' stats more impressive than shane bond's ...

No, Bond's stats are clearly better... Waqar's longevity is clearly better... and we'd all be happy with either taking the new ball...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

it's 0.4 better ... not 1,2 or 3 better

It's 0.5, and that's a BIG difference

For a player from 2002 onwards (higher scoring), 4.2 is a good economy rate.

For a player of the 90s, 4.7 is poor

 

[8Ball]

Who said longevity is key?

There are plenty of players that would be ahead of Hussey, no matter what your criteria are

By the same argument, there would be plenty of players ahead of Bond, no matter what your criteria are. If you rate Hussey on performance alone, there'd only be Bradman ahead of him.

Oh and by no means am I saying Hussey should be anywhere near it. Its just that Bond shouldn't be near it either.;-)

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

are you purposely not taking notice of 262 matches played compared to 67?

 

[JJ]

By the same argument, there would be plenty of players ahead of Bond, no matter what your criteria are.

Really, care to name some?? I'll agree with Garner, and perhaps Ambrose and Wasim... but beyond that...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

waqar played 200 more matches and has roughly identical statistics which makes waqar younis' stats more impressive than shane bond's ...

Waqar averaged 24 and his e/r was 4.7. Very good average, poor-ish economy.

Bond averaged 19 and his e/r was 4.2. Freakish average, good economy.

They're not close in any way, Bond is heaps better.

It's not like this is just statistical nitpicking either, Waqar was known as an attacking bowler who could be expensive. He usually bowled full and didn't naturally hit a good ODI length- similar to Lee.

This is not ideal for ODIs, the likes of Pollock or McGrath are vastly superior to Younis/Lee.

 

[8Ball]

Really, care to name some?? I'll agree with Garner, and perhaps Ambrose and Wasim... but beyond that...

Clearly you missed the sarcasm of my post. Remind me. How many players have played more than 20 matches and scored more than 2000 test runs have a higher average than Hussey?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

are you purposely not taking notice of 262 matches played compared to 67?

No I've deadset mentioned it in just about every post

I think there comes a point where longevity ceases to matter though, like I wouldn't really consider "total matches" as a factor if one had played 300 matches and the other 400.

ftr I don't think Bond played enough matches to make the all-time XI, but he's not far away. You can certainly say that 67 matches and 125 wickets is a decent sample to give an idea of how good he was.

Waqar is really a different point altogether, that point being that I don't think Waqar was as good in ODIs as you think he was. However, I'd put Waqar in my all-time test XI (a much bigger honour) if I could just have the Waqar of his first 40-odd tests.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

:?

On what basis is Lillee on another planet as an ODI bowler to someone who took 125 wickets at 19

having a better RPO for a start

Really, care to name some?? I'll agree with Garner, and perhaps Ambrose and Wasim... but beyond that...

chaminda vaas

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

And btw....as far as all-time XIs go, Hussey is certainly getting there...

The big thing counting against Hussey is that he has played entirely in an era where his contemporaries have done similar things to what he has....e.g. guys like Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, Yousuf etc have averaged 70 or 80 over a period of several years because batting has been unusually easy in this era

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

No I've deadset mentioned it in just about every post

I think there comes a point where longevity ceases to matter though, like I wouldn't really consider "total matches" as a factor if one had played 300 matches and the other 400.

ftr I don't think Bond played enough matches to make the all-time XI, but he's not far away. You can certainly say that 67 matches and 125 wickets is a decent sample to give an idea of how good he was.

Waqar is really a different point altogether, that point being that I don't think Waqar was as good in ODIs as you think he was. However, I'd put Waqar in my all-time test XI (a much bigger honour) if I could just have the Waqar of his first 40-odd tests.

300 to 400 is one thing as both have proven long term consistency ... but you're wanking on stats of a man who played 67 matches to a man who played 262 who has slightly inferior ... we're talking an about an average of 19 from 67 to an average of 23 from 262 ... an RPO of 4.2 from 67 and an RPO of 4.68 from 262 ...

waqar's stats are superior because he proved consistency for a period of time and bond didn't ...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

having a better RPO for a start

The 70s/80s can't be compared with the 90s/00s(at least, not easily) for ODI scoring rates

Lillee and Bond both have good-ish e/rs for their eras.

Compare Lillee to Garner (3.1 rpo) and you see how low e/r could go in that era.

 

[JJ]

having a better RPO for a start



chaminda vaas

:lol: yup, in an era with two new balls, and 200 was a terrific score...

Unlike MV I am a huge Lillee fan, but you can't be serious... even a genius like locky wouldn't make comments like that seriously

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

you obviously missed the point ...

 

[8Ball]

And btw....as far as all-time XIs go, Hussey is certainly getting there...

The big thing counting against Hussey is that he has played entirely in an era where his contemporaries have done similar things to what he has....e.g. guys like Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, Yousuf etc have averaged 70 or 80 over a period of several years because batting has been unusually easy in this era

Thats the point. Stats alone don't say anything especially when you've played so few matches. Bond has played in stops and starts. He plays a few, gets injured, comes back and takes a bag. Look at Akhtar's test stats, yet no one could possibly say he'd be anywhere near the all time test XI.

Same goes for Hussey, and same goes for Bond in the all time world XI.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

300 to 400 is one thing as both have proven long term consistency ... but you're wanking on stats of a man who played 67 matches to a man who played 262 who has slightly inferior ... we're talking an about an average of 19 from 67 to an average of 23 from 262 ... an RPO of 4.2 from 67 and an RPO of 4.68 from 262 ...

waqar's stats are superior because he proved consistency for a period of time and bond didn't ...

You have a pretty liberal interpretation of "slightly"....Bond's stats are quite a lot better.

tbh you can't say Waqar's stats are "better"- his "per game" stats are clearly worse, it's just that he played more and therefore established his credentials. With Bond, you can't say whether his stats would have gone downhill or not.

I agree with your basic point mate, Bond needed to play more games to cement his reputation. However, he has a few things in his favour- his 67 matches were spread over 5+ years, he showed he could still be effective even though he lost some pace, and he performed well against the best opposition (Australia).

 

[JJ]

I voted yes here, not because I think Bond should be in the all-time team, but because I believe he certainly should be considered... Every position in an all-time odi team, perhaps bar Viv Richards, is open for debate - and Bond should be part of that just because his numbers are freakish.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Thats the point. Stats alone don't say anything

They say plenty, as long as people are sensible when interpreting them and weigh up the circumstances

especially when you've played so few matches.

67 is an iffy number for mine. I don't necessarily think a guy needs to play 300 ODIs for his stats to count. 67 matches and 125 wickets is enough to get an idea of how good Bond was....probably not quite enough to get him in all-time XIs, but not too far away

Ditto Hussey- he has played quite a few games now and it's getting to the point where it's obviously not a fluke

Look at Akhtar's test stats, yet no one could possibly say he'd be anywhere near the all time test XI.

Bond's ODI stats are really out on their own though, as far as bowlers of the last decade or so go. Akhtar's are not as freakish.

 

[8Ball]

They say plenty, as long as people are sensible when interpreting them and weigh up the circumstances



67 is an iffy number for mine. I don't necessarily think a guy needs to play 300 ODIs for his stats to count. 67 matches and 125 wickets is enough to get an idea of how good Bond was....probably not quite enough to get him in all-time XIs, but not too far away

Ditto Hussey- he has played quite a few games now and it's getting to the point where it's obviously not a fluke



Bond's ODI stats are really out on their own though, as far as bowlers of the last decade or so go. Akhtar's are not as freakish.

67 isn't enough. That's the equivalent of about 20 test matches to put it into perspective. You have to remember, this is the ALL TIME XI, not the current 11. Sustained performance over a long period should be a requirement for anyone's XI, as there are just too many good players with extremely good stats.